The Blog Prof links to Chris Horner's article at Pajamas Media that details how Barack Obama, George Soros, and wind energy lobbyists colluded to hide the details of two economic studies that showed the wind energy programs in Spain and Denmark didn't help the economy and create jobs as the president said they did. I'm only including a small portion of Chris's article, but it's chock full of very interesting nuggets of information about how the Obama administration tried to undermine the credibility of the two studies:

After two studies refuted President Barack Obama's assertions regarding the success of Spain's and Denmark's wind energy programs, a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request reveals the Department of Energy turned to George Soros and to wind industry lobbyists to attack the studies.

Via the FOIA request, the Competitive Enterprise Institute has learned that the Department of Energy -- specifically the office headed by Al Gore's company's former CEO, Cathy Zoi -- turned to George Soros' Center for American Progress and other wind industry lobbyists to help push Obama's wind energy proposals.

The FOIA request was not entirely complied with, and CEI just filed an appeal over documents still being withheld. In addition to withholding many internal communications, the administration is withholding communications with these lobbyists and other related communications, claiming they constitute "inter-agency memoranda." This implies that, according to the DoE, wind industry lobbyists and Soros's Center for American Progress are -- for legal purposes -- extensions of the government.

This is a defense commonly employed against FOIA requests when seeking to withhold certain communications with, for example, paid consultants.

As candidate and president, on eight separate occasions Barack Obama instructed Americans to "think about what's happening in countries like Spain [and] Germany" if they wanted to know what successful "green jobs" policies look like, and if they wanted to know what we should expect here in the U.S. from his agenda.

Some European economists took a look. In March, a research team from Madrid's King Juan Carlos University produced a detailed, substantive, heavily sourced, two-method paper: "Study of the Effects on Employment of Public Aid to Renewable Energy Sources." The paper concluded that Spain's "green jobs" program was an economic failure, in fact costing Spain many jobs.

So the green jobs initiatives in Europe were deemed a failure. That didn't deter Barack Obama from trying to foist his massive green jobs initiative on the rest of us. He launched his own effort to "hide the decline," the economic decline that green jobs created in Europe from the American people.

Now, I am not by any means an expert on wind energy, but The Blog Prof is. He is an Associate Professor of Engineering at Oakland University and teaches a class about wind turbines and says this:

Now let me preface this post by saying that I am actually a fan of wind power. I mean - I do teach the subject after all at the university. What I am against is government pushing the technology which has led to an artificial spike in demand and has raised corresponding prices, in essence created a wind turbine bubble that will soon pop when the demand comes back down to where it was supposed to be all along. In addition, there is little if any environmental benefit to wind turbines as many, especially in the media and political classes, ignore completely the raw material, energy and manufacturing that goes into each. It's far from 'green.' Europe is at least learning the former lesson as its push for wind turbines is not having the beneficial economic effect that it was purported to have... I have posted a couple of times on the Spanish 'green' jobs or lack thereof, including this post - The True Cost of "Green Jobs"- with the conclusion that each green job displaced 2.2 conventional jobs. Denmark found a similar disaster afoot.

Which is why Obama called on Soros and his merry band of wind energy lobbyists to do what they could to hide the reality that wind energy does not create jobs, but kills them instead. As the president's team did their best to undermine the reports, President Obama battled forward and continued with his narrative that a green economy is a more prosperous economy even though he knew the truth. To hell with the negative economic impact his green jobs initiative will have on America's already weak economy. To this day Obama continues to push his environmental agenda no matter how bad it will be economically for our nation because it, just like his health care reform agenda, is the vehicle that will bring the American people under the control of the federal government.

"Spain and Denmark aren't nearly as windy as the US west east the Rockies."

Yeah, bryanD, Governor Arnold is all over the 'green jobs' that are sprouting up all over Kalifornia. Guess that's why our unemployment rate is over 12.5%! We're fucking 'greening' ourselves to death on Arnie's bullshit. Went over to Arizona a couple of weeks ago. Passed the Indian Reservation where they have 22 windmills. All were shut down due to damage from a windstorm. Cracked blades. Two weeks later, came back through. Still not working. Yep, that's a RELIABLE source isn't it?

Wind turbines require consistent, steady winds which do not have to be particularly strong. In fact, they are usually shut down during gales to prevent damage. Fairly strong is good, but consistency is more important. The best locations for consistent winds are seashores - think the Netherlands (you know tulips, wooden shoes and WINDMILLS). What do Denmark and Spain have in common with the Netherlands? Maybe something like having a LOT of coastline in comparison to the size of the country? I seriously doubt you have been to either country or you would know that just because they don't have tornadoes or hurricanes, doesn't mean that they don't have plenty of wind. If wind turbines aren't cost effective in coastal European countries, they sure won't be cost effective in Kansas (or anywhere else in the US).

Why is there so much information that is so bad for the Left hidden behind the Freedom of Information Act instead of right out in the open?

This is the 21st Century correct?
Why isn't all government funded information, and even MSM raw footage, that isn't a legitimate state secret hidden behind walls of bureaucracy instead of open source until it's to late to challenge the information and policy based on it in real time instead of right out in the open on government websites?

Does the government not use computers and are the government's own files, policies, and directives not on computer files?
Why is so much information subject to so much gatekeeping?

Are we to be enslaved by paperwork instead of guns and bullets?

Is our freedom to be stripped from us with a paper rustling wimper instead of the bang of a gun?

Why do we put up with these petty bureaucratic smoke screens in the Age of Information, the 21st Century?

This is the question that our age turns on.

Down with the gatekeepers.
Free speech is good, free speech coupled with real freedom of information is better.

I don't know about you guys, but I'm getting damned sick of being lied to on a daily basis by my own government. Unemployment numbers are cooked, housing numbers are given the silent treatment, our president is adamant that 10 years of taxes on health care "pays for" 6 years of benefits, Cap and Trade is a global emergency, Cash for Clunkers is going to permanently rescue the auto industry, we have to spend our way out of our recession, and happy days are just around the corner.

This is not what our president and our government was elected to do. It's not about public relations and apple polishing. I'm sick of it.

FOIA is the labyrinth that citizens have to navigate to attempt to obtain information that should already be free access in the public sphere.

FOIA is the opposite of freedom of information, while merely posing as freed information.
While FOIA pretends to provide freedom of information, most people won't demand genuine freedom of information.
Thereby does the false similitude serve it's nefarious purpose.

Of course having you defend FOIA, bryanD, makes my point very well.
Thank you.

Far from "freeing" information, FOIA is a means of shackling information.

Back to the topic at hand, I always get a chuckle out of the Siemens commercial, "Can a windfarm on the prairie power a home on the shore?" (of the ocean). REAL ANSWER: No. You'd have to be generating one hell of a lot of electricity in that windfarm to push it all the way to the coast. And there are no windfarms that big.

Aside from some success in Texas, I can't think of much to recommend wind power. It can be a great supplement, but it cannot be counted on as a peak power OR a base power provider.
That being said, for the amount of wind my property gets, I've been tempted to put up a hobby mill to keep the outdoor lights' batteries charged. Not really cost effective, really, but that's why it's a hobby mill. :)

Well, GFan, the way the modern grid and power trading plans work, you can "use" the power made on the prairie on the shore, but it is not the actual electrons from the plains.
After you pay off the transmission costs and marginal loss... it becomes a little daft to do so. That wind farm is best used to supplement the local grid, and possibly free up some more profitable base load power from a hydro, nuclear or coal station, or to hold off on firing up the "peakers" like the small hydro reservoir dams or gas turbines. Amy load freed up by wind is what will go to the public grid and make it to the coast.
Though I do laugh at that commercial too, since the coast is a fairly decent place for wind power... if you want "clean" wind power, do so locally. Unless you are a Kennedy...

There are some major problems with wind power generation. One as has been discussed is the need for a fairly constant wind. The coastal areas, the Plains states and the desert are the most reliable areas for this, but each has their drawbacks.

The coastal areas are probably the best place for wind power generation since they are closest to transmission lines where the power can be used and distributed, but they suffer from the areas being built up, people not wanting the visual effects of them and those pesky occasional hurricanes.

The Plains states can provide the required wind, but the population density is usually small except by large cities. Here you may not have the availability to transmission lines and then imagine the lawsuits when a tornado tears them apart and the pieces kill somebody. I have a feeling that windmills 'attract' tornadoes like mobile home parks do.

The deserts have constant wind, in the right locations, but there is no population, no transmission lines and blowing sand wrecks havoc with the machinery.

So for all the tauting of wind energy, it is not economically feasible and is best left to hobbists and small localized operations. It just isn't going to provide anything more than a miniscule amount of the nation's energy need.

A little wind energy here, a little hydro there, then some natural gas and some oil shale, and pretty soon we won't need as much offshore oil. Let China and India take the heat for being the international oil hogs!

China is doing a deal right now, for Iraqi oil. I don't want to hear about "oil wars."